A few of these corporate change eï¬€orts have been very successful. A few have been utter failures. Most fall somewhere in between, with a distinct tilt toward the lower end of the scale. The lessons that can be drawn are interesting and will probably be relevant to even more organizations in the increasingly competitive business environment of the coming decade.
The most general lesson to be learned from the more successful cases is that the change process goes through a series of phases that, in total, usually require a considerable length of time. Skipping steps creates only the illusion of speed and never produces a satisfying result. A second very general lesson is that critical mistakes in any of the phases can have a devastating impact, slowing momentum and negating hard-won gains. Perhaps because we have relatively little experience in renewing organizations, even very capable people often make at least one big error.
Eight Steps to Transforming Your Organization 1. Establishing a Sense of UrgencyExamining market and competitive realitiesIdentifying and discussing crises, potential crises, or major opportunities2. Forming a Powerful Guiding CoalitionAssembling a group with enough power to lead the change eï¬€ortEncouraging the group to work together as a team3. Creating a VisionCreating a vision to help direct the change eï¬€ortDeveloping strategies for achieving that vision4. Communicating the VisionUsing every vehicle possible to communicate the new vision and strategiesTeaching new behaviors by the example of the guiding coalition5.
Empowering Others to Act on the VisionGetting rid of obstacles to changeChanging systems or structures that seriously undermine the visionEncouraging risk taking and nontraditional ideas, activities, and actions6. Planning for and Creating Short-Term WinsPlanning for visible performance improvementsCreating those improvementsRecognizing and rewarding employees involved in the improvements7. Consolidating Improvements and Producing Still More ChangeUsing increased credibility to change systems, structures, and policies that dont ï¬t the visionHiring, promoting, and developing employees who can implement the visionReinvigorating the process with new projects, themes, and change agents8. Institutionalizing New ApproachesArticulating the connections between the new behaviors and corporate successDeveloping the means to ensure leadership development and succession
Error 1: Not Establishing a Great Enough Sense of Urgency
Most successful change eï¬€orts begin when some individuals or some groups start to look hard at a companys competitive situation, market position, technological trends, and ï¬nancial performance. They focus on the potential revenue drop when an important patent expires, the ï¬veyear trend in declining margins in a core business, or an emerging market that everyone seems to be ignoring. They then ï¬nd ways to communicate year trend in declining margins in a core business, or an emerging market that everyone seems to be ignoring. They then ï¬nd ways to communicate this information broadly and dramatically, especially with respect to crises, potential crises, or great opportunities that are very timely. This ï¬rst step is essential because just getting a transformation program started requires the aggressive cooperation of many individuals. Without motivation, people wont help, and the eï¬€ort goes nowhere.
Compared with other steps in the change process, phase one can sound easy. It is not. Well over 50% of the companies I have watched fail in this ï¬rst phase. What are the reasons for that failure? Sometimes executives underestimate how hard it can be to drive people out of their comfort zones. Sometimes they grossly overestimate how successful they have already been in increasing urgency. Sometimes they lack patience: Enough with the preliminaries; lets get on with it. In many cases, executives become paralyzed by the downside possibilities. They worry that employees with seniority will become defensive, that morale will drop, that events will spin out of control, that short-term business results will be jeopardized, that the stock will sink, and that they will be blamed for creating a crisis.
A paralyzed senior management often comes from having too many managers and not enough leaders. Managements mandate is to minimize risk and to keep the current system operating. Change, by deï¬nition, requires creating a new system, which in turn always demands leadership. Phase one in a renewal process typically goes nowhere until enough real leaders are promoted or hired into senior-level jobs.
Transformations often begin, and begin well, when an organization has a new head who is a good leader and who sees the need for a major change. If the renewal target is the entire company, the CEO is key. If change is needed in a division, the division general manager is key. When these individuals are not new leaders, great leaders, or change champions, phase one can be a huge challenge.
Bad business results are both a blessing and a curse in the ï¬rst phase. On the positive side, losing money does catch peoples attention. But it also gives less maneuvering room. With good business results, the opposite is true: Convincing people of the need for change is much harder, but you have more resources to help make changes.
But whether the starting point is good performance or bad, in the more successful cases I have witnessed, an individual or a group always facilitates a frank discussion of potentially unpleasant facts about new competition, shrinking margins, decreasing market share, ï¬‚at earnings, a lack of revenue growth, or other relevant indices of a declining competitive position. Because there seems to be an almost universal human tendency to shoot the bearer of bad news, especially if the head of the organization is not a change champion, executives in these companies often rely on outsiders to bring unwanted information. Wall Street analysts, customers, and consultants can all be helpful in this regard. The purpose of all this activity, in the words of one former CEO of a large European company, is to make the status quo seem more dangerous than launching into the unknown.
In a few of the most successful cases, a group has manufactured a crisis. One CEO deliberately engineered the largest accounting loss in the companys history, creating huge pressures from Wall Street in the process. One division president commissioned ï¬rst-ever customer satisfaction surveys, knowing full well that the results would be terrible. He then made these ï¬ndings public. On the surface, such moves can look unduly risky. But there is also risk in playing it too safe: When the urgency rate is not pumped up enough, the transformation process cannot succeed, and the long-term future of the organization is put in jeopardy.
When is the urgency rate high enough? From what I have seen, the answer is when about 75% of a companys management is honestly convinced that business as usual is totally unacceptable. Anything less can produce very serious problems later on in the process.
Error 2: Not Creating a Powerful Enough Guiding Coalition
Major renewal programs often start with just one or two people. In cases of successful transformation eï¬€orts, the leadership coalition grows and grows over time. But whenever some minimum mass is not achieved early in the eï¬€ort, nothing much worthwhile happens.
It is often said that major change is impossible unless the head of the organization is an active supporter. What I am talking about goes far beyond that. In successful transformations, the chairman or president or division general manager, plus another ï¬ve or 15 or 50 people, come together and develop a shared commitment to excellent performance through renewal. In my experience, this group never includes all of the companys most senior executives because some people just wont buy in, at least not at ï¬rst. But in the most successful cases, the coalition is always pretty powerful”in terms of titles, information and expertise, reputations, and relationships.
In both small and large organizations, a successful guiding team may consist of only three to ï¬ve people during the ï¬rst year of a renewal eï¬€ort. But in big companies, the coalition needs to grow to the 20 to 50 range before much progress can be made in phase three and beyond. Senior managers always form the core of the group. But sometimes you ï¬nd board members, a representative from a key customer, or even a powerful union leader.
Because the guiding coalition includes members who are not part of senior management, it tends to operate outside of the normal hierarchy by deï¬nition. This can be awkward, but it is clearly necessary. If the existing hierarchy were working well, there would be no need for a major transformation. But since the current system is not working, reform generally demands activity outside of formal boundaries, expectations, and protocol.
Error 3: Lacking a Vision
In every successful transformation eï¬€ort that I have seen, the guiding coalition develops a picture of the future that is relatively easy to communicate and appeals to customers, stockholders, and employees. A vision always goes beyond the numbers that are typically found in ï¬veyear plans. A vision says something that helps clarify the direction in which an organization needs to move. Sometimes the ï¬rst draft comes mostly from a single individual. It is usually a bit blurry, at least initially. But after the coalition works at it for three or ï¬ve or even 12 months, something much better emerges through their tough analytical thinking and a little dreaming. Eventually, a strategy for achieving that vision is also developed.
In one midsize European company, the ï¬rst pass at a vision contained two-thirds of the basic ideas that were in the ï¬nal product. The concept of global reach was in the initial version from the beginning. So was the idea of becoming preeminent in certain businesses. But one central idea in the ï¬nal version”getting out of low value-added activities”came only after a series of discussions over a period of several months.
Without a sensible vision, a transformation eï¬€ort can easily dissolve into a list of confusing and incompatible projects that can take the organization in the wrong direction or nowhere at all. Without a sound vision, the reengineering project in the accounting department, the new 360-degree performance appraisal from the human resources department, the plants quality program, the cultural change project in the sales force will not add up in a meaningful way.
In failed transformations, you often ï¬nd plenty of plans, directives, and programs but no vision. In one case, a company gave out four-inch-thick notebooks describing its change eï¬€ort. In mind-numbing detail, the books spelled out procedures, goals, methods, and deadlines. But nowhere was there a clear and compelling statement of where all this was leading. Not surprisingly, most of the employees with whom I talked were either confused or alienated. The big, thick books did not rally them together or inspire change. In fact, they probably had just the opposite eï¬€ect.
In a few of the less successful cases that I have seen, management had a sense of direction, but it was too complicated or blurry to be useful. Recently, I asked an executive in a midsize company to describe his vision and received in return a barely comprehensible 30-minute lecture. Buried in his answer were the basic elements of a sound vision. But they were buried”deeply.
If you cant communicate the vision to someone in ï¬ve minutes or less and get a reaction that signiï¬es both understanding and interest, you are not done. A useful rule of thumb: If you cant communicate the vision to someone in ï¬ve minutes or less and get a reaction that signiï¬es both understanding and interest, you are not yet done with this phase of the transformation process.
Error 4: Undercommunicating the Vision by a Factor of Ten
Ive seen three patterns with respect to communication, all very common. In the ï¬rst, a group actually does develop a pretty good transformation vision and then proceeds to communicate it by holding a single meeting or sending out a single communication. Having used about 0.0001% of the yearly intracompany communication, the group is startled when few people seem to understand the new approach. In the second pattern, the head of the organization spends a considerable amount of time making speeches to employee groups, but most people still dont get it (not surprising, since vision captures only 0.0005% of the total yearly communication). In the third pattern, much more eï¬€ort goes into newsletters and speeches, but some very visible senior executives still behave in ways that are antithetical to the vision. The net result is that cynicism among the troops goes up, while belief in the communication goes down.
Transformation is impossible unless hundreds or thousands of people are willing to help, often to the point of making short-term sacriï¬ces. Employees will not make sacriï¬ces, even if they are unhappy with the status quo, unless they believe that useful change is possible. Without credible communication, and a lot of it, the hearts and minds of the troops are never captured. This fourth phase is particularly challenging if the short-term sacriï¬ces include job losses. Gaining understanding and support is tough when downsizing is a part of the vision. For this reason, successful visions usually include new growth possibilities and the commitment to treat fairly anyone who is laid oï¬€.
In more successful transformation eï¬€orts, executives use all existing communication channels to broadcast the vision. They turn boring, unread company newsletters into lively articles about the vision. They take ritualistic, tedious quarterly management meetings and turn them into exciting discussions of the transformation. They throw out much of the companys generic management education and replace it with courses that focus on business problems and the new vision. The guiding principle is simple: Use every possible channel, especially those that are being wasted on nonessential information.
Perhaps even more important, most of the executives I have known in successful cases of major change learn to walk the talk. They consciously attempt to become a living symbol of the new corporate culture. This is often not easy. A 60-year-old plant manager who has spent precious little time over 40 years thinking about customers will not suddenly behave in a customer-oriented way. But I have witnessed just such a person change, and change a great deal. In that case, a high level of urgency helped. The fact that the man was a part of the guiding coalition and the visioncreation team also helped. So did all the communication, which kept reminding him of the desired behavior, and all the feedback from his peers and subordinates, which helped him see when he was not engaging in that behavior.
Communication comes in both words and deeds, and the latter are often the most powerful form. Nothing undermines change more than behavior by important individuals that is inconsistent with their words.
Error 5: Not Removing Obstacles to the New Vision
Successful transformations begin to involve large numbers of people as the process progresses. Employees are emboldened to try new approaches, to develop new ideas, and to provide leadership. The only constraint is that the actions ï¬t within the broad parameters of the overall vision. The more people involved, the better the outcome.
To some degree, a guiding coalition empowers others to take action simply by successfully communicating the new direction. But communication is never suï¬ƒcient by itself. Renewal also requires the removal of obstacles. Too often, an employee understands the new vision and wants to help make it happen, but an elephant appears to be blocking the path. In some cases, the elephant is in the persons head, and the challenge is to convince the individual that no external obstacle exists. But in most cases, the blockers are very real.
Sometimes the obstacle is the organizational structure: Narrow job categories can seriously undermine eï¬€orts to increase productivity or make it very diï¬ƒcult even to think about customers. Sometimes compensation or performance-appraisal systems make people choose between the new vision and their own self-interest. Perhaps worst of all are bosses who refuse to change and who make demands that are inconsistent with the overall eï¬€ort.